Content count

Joined

Last visited

You are talking this and that inconsequential, but nobody has mentioned that the light on the lighter stripe comes from the left, while the most part of the picture is lighted from the right. Thus:
Electronic shutter was used (with read speed of about 1/15 sec on Fuji, no matter what the "shutter speed" is), with a flash from another camera coming from the left.
Elementary, dear Watson!

You can get color banding in a room where there are several different hue fluorescent lights, connected to different phases of the AC grid.
Thank you for explaining the difference between scanning speed and shutter speed for those who did not know it.

Also ANY movement can create strange distortion effects on heads and hands... The real exposure/scan time is something like 1/15 sec. So the electronic shutter is good only for truly stationary subjects.

Yes and Yes.
Same size sensor and same lens: there CAN NOT be any difference in DOF.
BUT: with the bigger file* your 100% view of the file on the monitor is actually larger, which means you are having a closer look, which in turn means that you think you are seeing less DOF. One constant in defining DOF is actually the viewing distance, and you are not keeping that constant. If you take the same shot with both X-T1 and X-T2 and print them in the same size they will be identical (if not blown too large), but if you make the DPI values the same = X-T2 print is bigger, you will see that the bigger print seems to have less DOF. That is what is happening with the 100% views of the files.
*) in the quote "larger sensor": not larger, but higher resolution.

If you set the EVF permanently on the camera behaves like a DSLR, no? So what is the complaint really?
I use both XT-2 and top end Nikons in my work and I do understand that electronic viewfinders just do not always work as well as an old school optical one. Then on the other hand they are sometimes better. It is a choice.
I have migrated to XT-2 bodies and lenses for their size and weight compared to something like Nikon D4. Especially for reportage and street photography. Much easier.

We made a 3 week trip from Chengdu to Xining through Kham and Amdo this last July, visiting places like Yarchen Gar, Derge, several remote monasteries, some of which so remote that their existence was unknown until recently (monks had never seen foreigners). Saw a freshly mummified and gilded Abbot, sky burial and a bloody Shaman festival in Repkong.
Albums 1-3 are from this year, albums 6-9 from year 2013: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums
All shot with X-T1 (2 bodies) and 16mm, 35mm, 56mm and 55-200mm lenses.

I have not ever deleted any shots from the cards, at least not since getting bigger than 256MB cards I started with 15 years ago. Why go through all that trouble squinting at the small camera display, when nowadays the cards can hold thousands of photos, and hard drives millions. So cheaply that it does not even pay to delete any photos anymore? Time wasted, with a possibility of a mistake. My workflow: shoot only RAW. Transfer files to HDD, go through the catch with LightRoom marking those worth considering with one *, filter, adjust, export. All RAW files stay on HDD, when the disk gets full I just buy a bigger (and, again, cheaper) one. The whole problem is totally a non-issue.

Well, extension rings themselves do not restrict the amount of light reaching the sensor, close focusing does it. Actually focusing anywhere closer than infinity will decrease the exposure slightly, which of course is automatically corrected for by the camera exposure automation. If at infinity the exposure is 1, when shooting at 1:1 magnification (true size), the exposure correction is 4-fold or 2 stops more. This is simply because the lens, when focused at 1:1 magnification, is twice the focal length distance from the sensor, and the light is spread to 4 times the area compared to when focused to infinity (lens at 1 focal length from sensor).

I had an exhibition a year ago shot with X-Pro1 and X100s 16MP files, mostly A3+ sized prints, half dozen 50x70 cm also. Can not see any pixelation on A3+ prints, actually even the 50x70 cm prints look perfect even when pixel-peeping. I also have one 170cm wide panorama on canvas, which looks just great from typical viewing distances.

I had the X-Pro1 and it was a certain kind of turning point in my photography, but now I have two X-T1 bodies and I am not contemplating getting the new X-Pro2. Getting that "Leica" feel (in positive sense) is not as important to me than having 2 identical cameras for different lenses. X-Pro bodies, or more precisely the optical viewfinder, does not work with longer than 35mm lens, so why pay extra and carry a larger body just for that? Do not get me wrong, they are great street cameras and version 2 must be better than the first version for sure, but it still is a specialist tool compared to the X-T1.

To replace a 100mm Canon macro you need something around 60mm for APS-C sized sensor camera for the same picture angle. WAIT, Fuji has a 60mm macro lens!!!! Get that with extension rings, full auto. Problem with adapted lenses is that with some of them you can not set the aperture! If there is no aperture ring on the lens, that is. So either get an older macro with aperture ring, or just make the only sensible decision and get the Fujinon 60mm f/2.4.